This is in response to the printed version of my case before the Alaska Supreme Court.
The front page article entitled “Ducks are on the docket,” from Friday’s Empire states incorrectly that (a fence) was “… something that wasn’t prohibited by the plat notes.” The crux of my case deals with whether/not these plat notes do, in fact, prohibit a fence inside the perimeter (and Greenbelt) of Montana Creek Subdivision. This issue before the Supreme Court is to deal with whether or not I’m to have “standing” to settle this issue. (The city is wanting to deny me the ability to settle the issue on the merits.)
Here are the two plat notes in question:
1) 30’ ‘no-build’ structure setback,
2) No disturbance to 20’ natural greenbelt and visual buffer easement.
Note here that the city’s own definition of a “structure” includes “a fence.” And “no disturbance” does not mean “minimal disturbance a” s suggested by city policy stating that fences be allowed.
Further, these plat notes were established by the city (CDD and Planning Commission) and it is my position that they have a duty to enforce their own restrictions, rather than running away from their duty.
A ruling from this Supreme Court that I have “standing” will allow the courts to settle this issue on the merits, something the city is fighting to keep their “blunder” of originally allowing fences in this perimeter from being known.
Bill Yankee
Juneau
